3 ms·

The problem isn't activists, it's the climate. The Colorado River system has been in a drought for 20 years, and for all we know it'll be in a drought for 100 m

The problem isn't activists, it's the climate. The Colorado River system has been in a drought for 20 years, and for all we know it'll be in a drought for 100 more. (It's not clear to me this is anthropogenic, my impression is that it's a natural cycle of drought exacerbated by global climate change, but it's beside the point.) Read up on the Colorado River Compact. Where the Water Goes by David Owens is a very accessible primer. The tl;dr is that the water was portioned out to the Western states (including Arizona) during an unusually wet period, and we're now in a period of drought. They simply didn't understand this in 1922. With the advent of dendrochronology, we now understand that this river system is prone to droughts that can last hundreds of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwestern_North_American_megadrought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwestern_North_American_me...

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
> They simply didn't understand this in 1922 The scientists (various disciplines did). They were explicitly ignored by the compact negotiators. John Fleck has written about this quite a bit at https://www.inkstain.net/fleck/ https://www.inkstain.net/fleck/
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- maxbond 2y ago
  Apologies, I oversimplified while trying to summarize, what I meant was that they didn't understand that it was an unusually wet period and that the Colorado was subject to megadroughts. It's my understanding that they also oversubscribed the river even given those inflated numbers, redoubling the problem. I haven't read Science be Damned, I'll add it to my TBR, but I'm guessing that's what it's about?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    They absolutely did understand that it had been an unusually wet period. They may not have understand the picture we now have of historical megadroughts. The scientists apparently urged the compact negotiators to not use the numbers they did, and were ignored. I haven't read any of Fleck's books, but I read his blog regularly. He's commented quite often on the way the science gets ignored in favor of political/social and sometimes business goals.
    - maxbond 2y ago
      Interesting. Thanks for the correction and the reading material.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

> They simply didn't understand this in 1922 The scientists (various disciplines did). They were explicitly ignored by the compact negotiators. John Fleck has written about this quite a bit at https://www.inkstain.net/fleck/ https://www.inkstain.net/fleck/

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
maxbond 2y ago
Apologies, I oversimplified while trying to summarize, what I meant was that they didn't understand that it was an unusually wet period and that the Colorado was subject to megadroughts. It's my understanding that they also oversubscribed the river even given those inflated numbers, redoubling the problem. I haven't read Science be Damned, I'll add it to my TBR, but I'm guessing that's what it's about?
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  They absolutely did understand that it had been an unusually wet period. They may not have understand the picture we now have of historical megadroughts. The scientists apparently urged the compact negotiators to not use the numbers they did, and were ignored. I haven't read any of Fleck's books, but I read his blog regularly. He's commented quite often on the way the science gets ignored in favor of political/social and sometimes business goals.
  - maxbond 2y ago
    Interesting. Thanks for the correction and the reading material.